Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships
Date: 2016-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: civil union, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, mutual recognition principle, private international law

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 2.3.2016  
COM(2016) 107 final 

2016/0060 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in 
matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL 

1.1. 

General background 

Article 67(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Union is to 
constitute  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  with  respect  for  fundamental  rights  and  the 
different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Paragraph 4 of that article lays down 
that  the  Union  is  to  facilitate  access  to  justice,  in  particular  through  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial  decisions  in  civil  matters.  Article  81  of  the  Treaty 
explicitly  refers  to  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  'the  mutual  recognition  and  enforcement  between 
Member States  of  judgments and  of decisions in extrajudicial cases' and 'the compatibility of the 
rules  applicable  in  the  Member  States  concerning  conflict  of  laws  and  of  jurisdiction'.  Many 
instruments have already been adopted on this basis, in particular Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 
of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in 
matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental  responsibility,  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1347/2000. None of them, however, cover the property consequences of registered partnerships. 

The programme on mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters adopted by the 
Council  on  30 November  20001  provided  for  the  drafting  of  legislation  on  jurisdiction  and  the 
recognition and enforcement of decisions as regards 'rights in property arising out of a matrimonial 
relationship and the property consequences of the separation of an unmarried couple'. The Hague 
programme2,  which  was  adopted  by  the  European  Council  on  4  and  5  November  2004,  set  the 
implementation  of  the  mutual  recognition  programme  as  a  top  priority  and  called  on  the 
Commission  to  submit  a  Green  Paper  on  'the  conflict  of  laws  in  matters  concerning  matrimonial 
property  regimes,  including  the  question  of  jurisdiction  and  mutual  recognition',  and  stressed  the 
need to adopt such legislation by 2011. 

The Stockholm Programme, which was adopted by the European Council on 11 December 2009, 
also  states  that  mutual  recognition  should  be  extended  to  matrimonial  property  regimes  and  the 
property consequences of the separation of unmarried couples. 

In the 'EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights', adopted on 
27  October  20103,  the  Commission  identified  uncertainty  surrounding  the  property  rights  of 
international couples  as  one  of  the  main obstacles faced by  EU  citizens  in  their daily  lives when 
they tried to exercise the rights the EU conferred on them across national borders. To remedy this, 
it  announced  that  it  would  adopt  in  2011  a  proposal  for  legislation  to  make  it  easier  for 
international couples (either married or registered partners) to know which courts had jurisdiction 
and which law applied to their property rights. 

On 16 March 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal4 for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, 
applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property 
regimes  and  a  proposal5  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1. 
COM(2010) 603. 
COM (2011) 126. 
COM (2011) 127. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  regarding  the  property  consequences  of  registered 
partnerships6.  

The  legal  basis  for  the  proposed  Council  Regulations  was  Article  81(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union. The proposals related to judicial cooperation in civil matters 
covering  ‘aspects  relating  to  family  law’.  Under  this  legal  basis  measures  are  adopted  by  the 
Council  acting  unanimously  after  consulting  the  European  Parliament.  The  European  Parliament 
delivered its opinion on 10 September 20137. 

The  Commission  proposals  were  discussed  in  the  Council  Working  Party  on  Civil  Law  Matters 
(Matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships) until the 
end of 2014. In December 2014, the Council decided to grant a reflection period to those Member 
States  which  continued  to  have  difficulties;  this  period  should  not  last,  however,  more  than  one 
year.  At  its  meeting  of  3  December  2015,  the  Council  concluded  that  no  unanimity  could  be 
reached for the adoption of the proposals for regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the 
property consequences of registered partnerships and that therefore the objectives of cooperation in 
this area could not  be  attained within a reasonable  period  by  the  Union as a whole. The Council 
also  noted  that  several  Member  States  expressed  their  readiness  to  give  positive  consideration  to 
the establishment of enhanced cooperation on the matters covered by the proposals. 

From December 2015 to February 2016, 17 Member States8 addressed a request to the Commission 
indicating that they wished to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the 
property regimes of international couples and, specifically, of jurisdiction, applicable law and the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  in  matters  of  matrimonial  property  regimes  and 
jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  regarding  the 
property consequences of registered partnerships, and asking the Commission to submit a proposal 
to the Council to that effect. 

The proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, 
applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  on  the  property  regimes  of 
international  couples,  covering  both  matters  of  matrimonial  property  regimes  and  the  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships;  this  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships  and  the  parallel  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on 
matrimonial  property  regimes,  both  of  which  implement  the  enhanced  cooperation  and  were 
adopted by the Commission at the same time, are the Commission's response to the request by 17 
Member  States  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  participating  Member  States').  The  proposal  for  a 
Council  Decision  contains  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  legal  conditions  governing,  and  the 
appropriateness of, the introduction of enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable 
law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  on  the  property  regimes  of  international 
couples, covering both matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of 
registered partnerships. 

6 

7 
8 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaties, Denmark 
did  not  take  part  in  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Regulation  and  was  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its 
application. In accordance with Article 1 and 2 of Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland 
annexed to the Treaties, Ireland and the United Kingdom did not give notice of their wish to take part in the 
adoption and application of the proposed Regulation.  
A7-0253/2013 
Sweden,  Belgium,  Greece,  Croatia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  France,  Portugal,  Italy,  Malta,  Luxembourg,  Germany, 
the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Austria, Bulgaria and Finland. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

The increasing mobility of persons within an area without internal frontiers leads to a significant 
increase  in  the  number  of  couples,  in  whatever  form,  made  up  of  nationals  of  different  Member 
States  who  live  in  a  Member  State  other  than  their  own  or  acquire  property  in  more  than  one 
Member  State.  A  study  carried  out  by  the  consortium  ASSER-UCL  in  20039  showed  the  large 
number  of  transnational  couples  within  the  Union  and  the  practical  and  legal  difficulties  such 
couples  face,  both  in  the  daily  management  of  their  property  and  in  its  division  if  the  couple 
separates  or  one  of  its  members  dies.  While  marriage  is  the  most  common  form  of  couple,  new 
forms of union have emerged, including the registered partnership, by which two people in a stable 
relationship  formally  register  their  union  with  a  public  authority.  The  difficulties  encountered  by 
couples  in  a  registered  partnership  often  result  from  the  great  disparities  between  the  applicable 
rules  governing  the  property  effects  of  such  unions,  both  in  substantive  law  and  in  private 
international law.  

Because of the features that distinguish registered partnerships and marriage and the different legal 
consequences  resulting  from  these  forms  of  union,  the  Commission  is  presenting  two  separate 
proposals for Regulations: one on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement 
of  decisions  regarding  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  and  the  other  on 
jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  in  matters  of 
matrimonial  property  regimes.  These  two  proposals  are  the  implementing  measures  of  the 
enhanced cooperation established in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and 
enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of international couples, covering both matters of 
matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. 

The  purpose  of  this  proposal  is  to  establish  a  clear  legal  framework  in  the  European  Union  for 
determining  jurisdiction  and  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  registered 
partnerships  and  to  facilitate  the  circulation  of  decisions  and  instruments  on  this  matter  among 
Member States. 

2. 

RESULT OF THE CONSULTATIONS – IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Before the 2011 Commission proposal was drawn up, a broad consultation exercise took place with 
the  Member  States,  other  Union  institutions  and  the  public.  Following  the  2003  study,  on 
17 July 2006  the Commission published a Green Paper on conflict  of laws in matters concerning 
matrimonial property regimes10, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition, that 
launched wide-ranging consultations on the subject. A group of experts, PRM/III, was set up by the 
Commission to draw up the proposal. The group was composed of experts representing the range of 
professions concerned and the different European legal traditions; it met five times between 2008 
and  2010.  The  Commission  also  held  a  public  hearing  on  28 September  2009  involving  some 
hundred  participants.  The  debates  confirmed  the  need  for  an  EU  instrument  in  this  area  that 
covered in particular applicable law, jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions. 
A meeting with national experts was held on 23 March 2010 to discuss the thrust of the proposal 
being  drafted.  Finally,  the  Commission  conducted  a  joint  impact  study  on  the  proposals  for 

9 

10 

ASSER-UCL Consortium, Study in comparative law on the rules governing conflicts of jurisdiction and laws 
on matrimonial property regimes and the implementation for property issues of the separation of unmarried 
couples in the Member States. 
See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm 
COM(2006) 400. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
 
regulations  on  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  and  matrimonial  property 
regimes.  

The two new proposals regarding matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of 
registered  partnerships  contain  solutions  similar  to  those  presented  in  the  2011  proposals  taking 
into account discussions in the Council and the European Parliament up to the end of 2015. 

3. 

LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for this proposal is Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, which confers on the Council the power to adopt measures concerning family law having 
cross-border implications by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament. 

As  with  matrimonial  property  regimes,  property  relationships  between  registered  partners  and 
between the partners and third parties, derive from the prior existence of the registered partnership. 
The  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  are  created  by  the  registration  of  the 
partnership  –  just  as  a  matrimonial  regime  is  created  by  marriage  –  and  they  disappear  with  its 
dissolution.  By  registering  their  partnership  with  a  public  authority,  partners  establish  a  stable, 
legally  recognised  relationship  with  each  other.  Most  Member  States  with  legal  provisions  for 
partnerships make the rules as similar as possible to those of marriage. 

The  aim  of  this  proposal  is  to  establish  a  comprehensive  set  of  rules  of  international  private  law 
applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships. It therefore deals with matters 
of  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  regarding  the 
property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership.  The  rules  proposed  are  concerned  only  with 
cross-border  cases.  The  cross-border  requirement  in  Article  81(3)  is  consequently  fulfilled.  This 
proposal only concerns the property consequences of the registered partnership and does not define 
the  institution  of  registered  partnership  nor  does  it  impose  the  recognition  of  a  registered 
partnership in another Member State. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The only way of achieving the proposal's objectives is through the adoption of common rules on 
the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  rules  which  must  be  identical  in  all 
participating  Member  States  in  order  to  guarantee  legal  certainty  and  predictability  for  citizens. 
Unilateral action by Member States would therefore run counter to this objective. No international 
agreements are applicable in this context other than the Convention on the recognition of registered 
partnerships of 5 September 2007 of the International Commission on Civil Status. However, this 
Convention  covers  only  the  recognition  of  partnerships  and  has  not  entered  into  force,  so  it  is 
unlikely to offer the solutions needed in view of the magnitude of the problems addressed by this 
proposal, as revealed by both the impact study and the public hearings. Given the nature and the 
scale of the problems experienced by Union citizens, the proposal's objectives can only be achieved 
at Union level. 

3.3. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the principle of proportionality in that it is strictly limited to what is 
necessary to achieve its objectives. It does not try to harmonise the substantive laws of the Member 
States concerning the property aspects of registered partnerships and it does not affect the way in 
which  the  liquidation  of  the  property  of  registered  partnerships  is  taxed  by  Member  States.  This 

EN 

5 

   EN 

proposal will not entail any financial or administrative burdens on citizens and only a very limited 
additional burden on national authorities. 

3.4. 

Impact on fundamental rights 

In  accordance  with  the  strategy  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights by the European Union11, the Commission has checked that the proposal complies with the 
rights set out in the Charter. 

It does not affect the right to respect for private and family life nor the right to marry and to found a 
family according to national laws, as provided for in Articles 7 and 9 of the Charter.  

The right to property referred to in Article 17 of the Charter is strengthened. The predictability of 
the  law  applicable  to  all  the  couple's  property  will  in  fact  enable  the  partners  to  exercise  their 
property rights more fully.  

The Commission has also checked that the proposal complies with Article 9 of the Charter on the 
right to found a family in accordance with national laws, and with Article 21 of the Charter, which 
prohibits any discrimination.  

Finally, the proposal would increase citizens' access to justice in the EU, in particular for registered 
partnerships. It would facilitate implementation of Article 47 of the Charter, which guarantees the 
right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. By setting out objective criteria for determining the 
court having jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and appeals precipitated by the most active party can 
be avoided. 

3.5. 

Choice of instrument 

The need for legal certainty and predictability calls for clear and uniform rules and requires that the 
legislation take the form of a regulation. The proposed rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and free 
circulation of decisions are set out clearly and in detail, requiring no transposition into national law. 
The  objectives  of  legal  certainty  and  predictability  would  be  compromised  if  the  Member  States 
had discretion with regard to implementing the rules. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT, SIMPLIFICATION AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER UNION POLICIES 

4.1. 

Budgetary impact 

The proposal will have no impact on the Union budget. 

4.2. 

Simplification 

The  harmonisation  of  the  rules  on  jurisdiction  will  greatly  simplify  procedures  by  making  it 
possible  to  determine  the  court  with  jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the  property  consequences  of 
registered  partnerships  on  the  basis  of  common  rules.  If  courts  handling  the  termination  of  the 
partnership or a succession case following the death of one of the partners in application of existing 
EU legislation have their jurisdiction extended to related proceedings on the property consequences 
of  the  partnership,  citizens  will  be  able  to  have  the  same  court  dealing  with  all  aspects  of  their 
situation. 

11 

Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 573 of 19.10.2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
The  harmonisation  of  conflict-of-law  rules  will  considerably  simplify  procedures  by  establishing 
which law is applicable on the basis of a single set of rules replacing the various national conflict-
of-law rules of the participating Member States. 

Finally, the rules proposed for the recognition and enforcement of court decisions will facilitate the 
movement of citizens between different Member States. 

4.3. 

Consistency with other Union policies 

This proposal is part of the Commission's efforts to dismantle the obstacles faced by EU citizens in 
their daily lives when they try to exercise the rights the EU confers on them, as outlined in the 2010 
EU Citizenship Report referred to earlier. 

5. 

COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLES 

5.1. 

Chapter I: Scope and definitions 

Article 1 

The notion of 'the property consequences of registered partnerships' must be given an autonomous 
interpretation and embrace considerations relating to both the partners' daily management of their 
property and the liquidation of the property as a result of the couple's separation or the death of one 
of the partners. 

To determine the areas that will be covered it proved preferable to compile a comprehensive list of 
matters excluded from the Regulation. Thus, matters already covered by existing EU regulations, 
such as maintenance obligations12, especially between partners, and matters arising from the law of 
succession13, are excluded from the scope of the Regulation.  

The Regulation does not affect the existence or validity of a registered partnership under national 
law or the recognition in one Member State of a partnership registered in another Member State. It 
also  does  not  affect  matters  of  social  security  or  the  entitlement  to  rights  to  pension  in  case  of 
dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership. 

The Regulation does not concern the nature of rights in rem relating to a property, the classification 
of property and of rights, or the determination of the prerogatives of the holder of such rights.  

The requirements to make an entry in the land register and the effects of an entry or failure to make 
an entry in this register are also excluded from the scope of the Regulation. 

Article 3 

For  the  sake  of  consistency  and  to  facilitate  their  understanding  and  uniform  application,  some 
definitions of terms appearing in this Regulation are common to other EU instruments in force. 

The  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  which  are  the  sole  subject  matter  of  this 
Regulation, are given a specific definition limiting them to existing property relationships between 
the partners and between the partners and third parties arising from the institutionalised relationship 
created by the registration of the partnership.  

12 
13 

Governed by Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 
Governed by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 107. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
The  proposed  definition  of  'court'  includes  authorities  and  legal  professions  (such  as  notaries) 
which exercise judicial functions or act by delegation of power by a court, so that their decisions 
are treated as court decisions for the purposes of recognition and enforcement in a Member State 
other than the Member State where they were delivered. 

5.2. 

Chapter II: Jurisdiction 

Legal  proceedings  on  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  often  arise  from  the 
liquidation of the property when the couple ceases to exist, either as a result of the death of one of 
the partners or of their separation or the dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership. 

The aim of this Regulation is to enable citizens to have the various related procedures handled by 
the  courts  of  the  same  Member  State.  To  this  end,  the  Regulation  is  designed  to  ensure  that  the 
rules  to  determine  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  called  on  to  deal  with  the  property  aspects  of 
registered partnerships are in line with existing rules in other Union instruments and, in particular, 
to concentrate jurisdiction over the property regime in the Member State whose courts are handling 
the succession of a partner or the dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership. 

Article 4 

To ensure that, in the event of the death of one of the partners, the competent court can handle both 
the  succession  of  the  deceased  partner  and  the  liquidation  of  the  property  of  the  registered 
partnership, this article provides that the court having jurisdiction for the succession according to 
the rules laid  down in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 should also have jurisdiction to rule on the 
liquidation of the property regime of the registered partnership linked to the succession.  

Article 5 

Similarly,  the  court  of  a  Member  State  dealing  with  the  dissolution  or  annulment  of  a  registered 
partnership  should  also  rule,  if  the  partners  agree,  on  the  liquidation  of  the  property  of  the 
registered partnership arising from the dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership.  

Articles 6 and 7 

Article  6  also  provides  for  rules  governing  jurisdiction  that  would  apply  when  matters  of  the 
property  regime  of  the  registered  partnership  are  not  linked  to  proceedings  on  succession  or  the 
dissolution  or  annulment  of  the  registered  partnership  (for  example,  when  the  partners  want  to 
change the property regime of their registered partnership). A list of connecting factors, in order of 
precedence,  would  determine  the  Member  State  whose  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the 
proceedings concerning the property consequences of the registered partnership. 

The  proposed  criteria  include  the  common  habitual  residence  of  the  partners,  their  last  common 
habitual  residence  if  one  of  them  still  resides  there  or  the  habitual  residence  of  the  respondent; 
these widely used criteria frequently coincide with the location of the partners' property. Another 
criterion is the common nationality of the partners, and the last criterion is the Member State where 
the registered partnership was created. 

In such cases, in order to enhance predictability and the freedom to choose of the spouses, Article 7 
would also allow the partners to agree that the courts that should deal with matters of their property 
regime should be the courts of the Member State whose law applies to the property consequences 

EN 

8 

   EN 

of the registered partnership or the courts of the Member State where the registered partnership was 
created. 

Article 9 

Exceptionally, the court of a Member State that has jurisidiction may decline such jurisdiction if 
the national law of its Member State does not provide for the institution of registered partnership. 
In order to ensure the partners' access to justice in such cases, the partners can agree that the courts 
of the Member State whose law applies to the property consequences of the registered partnership 
or  the  courts  of  the  Member  State  where  the  registered  partnership  was  created  will  rule  on  the 
proceedings.  Otherwise,  the  criteria  laid  down  by  Article  5  would  determine  the  Member  State 
whose courts should rule on the matter. 

In  any  event,  the  court  of  a  Member  State  that  has  jurisidiction  will  not  be  able  to  decline  such 
jurisdiction  when  the  partners  have  obtained  a  dissolution  or  annulment  of  their  registered 
partnership and this dissolution or annulment is capable of recognition in the court's Member State. 

Article 10 

Where no Member State has jurisdiction in application of the previous articles, this article ensures 
access to justice for partners and interested third parties before the courts of the Member State in 
which one or both of the partners has immoveable property. In these cases, the courts would only 
rule in respect of the immoveable property located in that Member State.  

5.3. 

Chapter III: Applicable law 

Article 20 

The law that would apply to matters of the property consequences of a registered partnership can be 
the law of a Member State or the law of a non-Member State. 

Article 21 

The option proposed in the Regulation is that of a single scheme: all the property of the partners, 
regardless of its nature (moveable or immoveable) and location, would be subject to the same law, 
namely the law applicable to the property regime of the registered partnership.  

Immoveable property has a special place in the property of couples, and one of the possible options 
would have been to make it subject to the law of the country in which it is located (lex situs), thus 
allowing  the  dismemberment  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  regime  of  the  registered 
partnership. This solution is, however, fraught with difficulties, particularly when it comes to the 
liquidation  of  the  property  of  the  registered  partnership,  in  that  it  would  lead  to  an  undesirable 
fragmentation of the unity of the property of the registered partnership (while the liabilities would 
remain in a single scheme), and to the application of different laws to different properties within 
the  property  regime  of  the  registered  partnership.  The  Regulation  therefore  provides  that  the  law 
applicable to the property of the registered partnership, whether chosen by the partners or, in the 
absence  of  any  such  choice,  determined  under  other  provisions,  will  apply  to  all  the  couple's 
property, moveable or immoveable, irrespective of its location. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Article 22 

During  the  consultations  a  broad  consensus  emerged  in  favour  of  according  spouses  a  degree  of 
freedom in choosing the law applicable to their matrimonial property regime in order to facilitate 
the  spouses'  management  of  their  property.  The  possibility  to  choose  the  law  applicable  to  the 
property regime of a registered partnership should equally apply to registered partners. This option 
should be clearly regulated to prevent the law chosen from having little relation to the couple's real 
situation or past history: the law chosen must therefore be the law of the habitual residence or of 
the nationality of the partners or future partners or of one of them, or the law of the State where the 
registered partnership was created. 

In addition to the possibility for the partners to choose the law applicable at the time of the creation 
of  their  registered  partnership,  this  article  makes  provision  for  making  such  a  choice  later. 
Similarly, partners having chosen the applicable law at the time of the creation of their registered 
partnership  may  later  decide  to  change  it.  If  the  partners  decide  to  change  the  law  applicable  to 
their property regime, they can only choose one of the laws that they could have chosen at the time 
of the creation of their registered partnership. 

Only  a  voluntary  change  of  applicable  law  is  possible.  The  Regulation  does  not  provide  for  any 
automatic change of applicable law without the partners expressing their consent to such change or 
without them having been notified, in order to avoid legal uncertainty. 

Furthermore,  to  prevent  a  change  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  regime  of  the  registered 
partnership from having undesirable effects for the partners, such a change is effective only in the 
future, unless the partners decide to make it retrospective. 

The rights of third parties whose interests might be prejudiced by a change of the law applicable to 
the property consequences of the registered partnership are protected: the Regulation provides that 
the  effects  of  a  retroactive  change  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  the 
registered partnership cannot adversely affect the rights of third parties. 

Articles 23 to 25 

These provisions set out rules on the procedures to follow by partners to choose the applicable law 
and to agree on their property regime through a partnership property agreement.  

Article 26 

When  partners  do  not  choose  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  regime  of  their  registered 
partnership, it is important to have common rules in the participating Member States to determine 
what law is applicable in the absence of choice by the partners. The applicable law would be the 
law of the State in which the registered partnership was created. However, exceptionally, one of the 
partners can ask a court that the law applicable should be the law of the State where the partners 
had their last common habitual residence. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Articles 27 and 28 

The  Regulation  lists  some  of  the  matters  that  would  be  governed  by  the  law  applicable  to  the 
property  consequences  of  the  registered  partnership.  Such  matters  include  the  liquidation  of  the 
property  and  also  the  effects  of  the  property  consequences  of  the  registered  partnership  on  the 
relationships between a partner and a third party. However, in order to protect the rights of third 
parties, the Regulation provides that a partner cannot invoke the applicable law against a third party 
in a dispute unless the third party knew or should have known the law applicable to the property 
consequences of the registered partnership. The Regulation specifies the cases in which it would be 
considered  that  the  third  party  knew  or  should  have  known  the  applicable  law  that  governs  the 
property consequences of the registered partnership. 

Article 29 

To  take  account  of  national  rules  for  the  protection  of  the  family  home,  this  provision  allows  a 
Member  State  to  set  aside  the  application  of  a  foreign  law  in  favour  of  its  own.  Accordingly,  to 
protect the family home, a Member State where the home is located may apply its own rules for the 
protection  of  the  family  home.  Exceptionally,  this  Member  State  may  apply  its  own  law  to  all 
persons living on its territory in 'preference' to the law normally applicable or that of a partnership 
property agreement concluded in another Member State. 

5.4. 

Chapter IV: Recognition, enforceability and enforcement 

The proposed Regulation provides for the free circulation of decisions, authentic instruments and 
court  settlements  concerning  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships.  It  would  thus 
introduce mutual recognition based on the mutual trust arising out of the integration of the Member 
States within the Union. 

This  free  circulation  would  take  the  form  of  a  uniform  procedure  for  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  judgments,  authentic  acts  and  legal  transactions  originating  in  another  Member 
State.  The  procedure  replaces  the  national  procedures  currently  in  force  in  the  different  Member 
States. The grounds for non-recognition or refusal to enforce are also harmonised at Union level or 
reduced  to  the  absolute  minimum.  They  replace  the  varied,  and  often  broader,  grounds  that 
currently exist at national level. 

Decisions  

The  proposed  rules  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  are  in  line  with  those 
contained  in  Regulation  No  650/2012  on  succession.  They  therefore  refer  to  the  exequatur 
procedure laid down in that Regulation. This means that any decision of a Member State would be 
recognised  in  other  Member  States  without  any  special  procedure  and  that,  to  have  a  decision 
enforced  in  another  Member  State,  applicants  would  have  to  follow  a  uniform  procedure  in  the 
Member State of enforcement to obtain a declaration of enforceability. The procedure is unilateral 
and  is  initially  confined  to  a  verification  of  documents.  Only  at  a  later  stage,  if  the  defendant 
objects,  would  the  judge  proceed  to  consider  possible  grounds  for  refusal.  This  offers  adequate 
protection of the rights of defendants. 

These  rules  are  a  major  step  forward  compared  with  the  current  situation.  At  present,  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  is  governed  by  the  Member  States'  national  laws  or 
bilateral  agreements  between  some  Member  States.  The  procedures  to  be  followed  vary  with  the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Member  States  concerned,  as  do  the  documents  required  for  obtaining  a  declaration  of 
enforceability and the grounds on which foreign judgments may be rejected.  

As  explained  earlier,  this  Regulation  is  a  first  step  in  the  area  of  the  property  consequences  of 
registered partnerships and it concerns family law (see point 3.1). Given its specific circumstances, 
the free circulation of judgments is subject to the exequatur procedure. Nevertheless, the removal 
of intermediate proceedings (exequatur) could, as in other areas, be considered at a later stage, after 
an  evaluation  of  the  application  of  the  rules  in  this  Regulation  and  the  development  of  judicial 
cooperation on the property consequences of registered partnerships.  

The acts of authorities exercising their powers by delegation in accordance with the definition of a 
court  in  Article  2  of  this  Regulation  will  be  treated  as  court  decisions  and  thus  covered  by  the 
provisions on recognition and enforcement under this chapter. 

Authentic instruments 

Given the practical importance of authentic instruments for the property consequences of registered 
partnerships and in order to ensure the consistency of this Regulation with other EU instruments, 
this Regulation should ensure their acceptance for the purposes of their free circulation.  

This acceptance means that they will enjoy the same evidentiary effect in respect of the contents of 
the  instrument  and  the  facts  contained  therein,  and  the  same  presumption  of  authenticity  and 
enforceability as in the country of origin. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

2016/0060 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of 
the property consequences of registered partnerships 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular  Article 
81(3) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament14, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee15, 

Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure,  

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of 
freedom,  security  and  justice  in  which  the  free  movement  of  persons  is  ensured.  For  the 
gradual  establishment  of  such  an  area,  the  Union  is  to  adopt  measures  relating  to  judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  matters  having  cross-border  implications,  particularly  when  necessary 
for the proper functioning of the internal market. 

In  accordance  with  point  c)  of  Article  81(2)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, such measures may include measures aimed at ensuring the compatibility 
of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws and of jurisdiction. 

The  European  Council  meeting  in  Tampere  on  15  and  16  October  1999  endorsed  the 
principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities as 
the  cornerstone  of  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters  and  invited  the  Council  and  the 
Commission to adopt a programme of measures to implement that principle. 

A programme of measures for the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of 
decisions in civil and commercial matters16, common to the Commission and to the Council, 
was  adopted  on  30 November  2000.  That  programme  identifies  measures  relating  to  the 
harmonisation  of  conflict-of-law  rules  as  measures  facilitating  the  mutual  recognition  of 

14 
15 
16 

OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

decisions  and  provides  for  the  drawing-up  of  an  instrument  in  matters  of  matrimonial 
property regimes and the property consequences of the separation of unmarried couples.  

The  European  Council  meeting  in  Brussels  on  4  and  5  November  2004  adopted  a  new 
programme  called  'The  Hague  Programme:  strengthening  freedom,  security  and  justice  in 
the European Union'17. In this programme the Council asked the Commission to present a 
Green  Paper  on  conflicts  of  law  in  matters  concerning  matrimonial  property  regimes, 
including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition. The programme also stressed 
the need to adopt an instrument in this area. 

On 17 July 2006 the Commission adopted the Green Paper on the conflict of laws in matters 
concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual 
recognition18.  This  Green  Paper  launched  wide  consultations  on  all  aspects  of  the 
difficulties  faced  by  couples  in  Europe  when  it  comes  to  the  liquidation  of  their  common 
property  and  the  legal  remedies  available.  The  Green  Paper  also  addressed  all  issues  of 
private international law encountered by couples in unions other than marriages, including 
couples with registered partnerships, and issues specific to them.  

At its  meeting in Brussels on 10 and 11 December 2009 the European Council  adopted a 
new  multiannual  programme  called  'the  Stockholm  Programme  –  An  open  and  secure 
Europe  serving  and  protecting  citizens'19.  In  that  programme  the  European  Council 
considered that mutual recognition should be extended to fields that are not yet covered but 
are  essential  to  everyday  life,  for  example  the  property  consequences  of  the  separation  of 
couples,  while  taking  into  consideration  Member  States'  legal  systems,  including  public 
policy (ordre public), and national traditions in this area. 

In  the  'EU  Citizenship  Report  2010:  Dismantling  the  obstacles  to  EU  citizens’  rights', 
adopted on 27 October 201020, the Commission announced that it would adopt a proposal 
for legislation to eliminate the obstacles to the free movement of persons, in particular the 
difficulties experienced by couples in managing or dividing their property. 
On  16  March  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal21  for  a  Council  Regulation  on 
jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of 
matrimonial  property  regimes  and  a  proposal22  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction, 
applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  regarding  the  property 
consequences of registered partnerships. 

(10)  At  its  meeting  of  3  December  2015,  the  Council  concluded  that  no  unanimity  could  be 
reached  for  the  adoption  of  the  proposals  for  the  regulations  on  matrimonial  property 
regimes  and  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  and  that  therefore  the 
objectives of cooperation in this area could not be attained within a reasonable period by the 
Union as a whole.  

(11)  From  December  2015  to  February  2016,  Sweden,  Belgium,  Greece,  Croatia,  Slovenia, 
Spain,  France,  Portugal,  Italy,  Malta,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  the  Czech  Republic,  the 
Netherlands,  Austria,  Bulgaria  and  Finland  addressed  requests  to  the  Commission 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1. 
COM(2006) 400. 
OJ L 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. 
COM(2010) 603. 
COM (2011) 126. 
COM (2011) 127. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
indicating  that  they  wished  to  establish  enhanced  cooperation  between  themselves  in  the 
area  of  the  property  regimes  of  international  couples  and,  specifically,  of  the  jurisdiction, 
applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial 
property  regimes  and  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
decisions  regarding  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  and  asking  the 
Commission to submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. 

(12)  On […], the Council adopted Decision […] authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of 
jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  on  the 
property  regimes  of  international  couples,  covering  both  matters  of  matrimonial  property 
regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. 

(13)  According to Article 328(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, when 
enhanced cooperation is being established, it is to be open to all Member States, subject to 
compliance with any conditions of participation laid down by the authorising decision. It is 
also  to  be  open  to  them  at  any  other  time,  subject  to  compliance  with  the  acts  already 
adopted  within  that  framework,  in  addition  to  those  conditions.  The  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  participating  in  enhanced  cooperation  should  ensure  that  they  promote 
participation by as many Member States as possible. This Regulation should be binding in 
its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  only  in  the  participating  Member  States  in  accordance 
with the Treaties. 

(14) 

In accordance with Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this 
Regulation  should  apply  in  the  context  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered 
partnerships having cross-border implications. 

(15)  To  provide  unmarried  couples  with  legal  certainty  as  to  their  property  and  offer  them  a 
degree of predictability, all the rules applicable to the property consequences of registered 
partnerships should be covered in a single instrument. 

(16)  The  way  in  which  forms  of  union  other  than  marriage  are  provided  for  in  the  Member 
States'  legislation  differs  from  one  State  to  another,  and  a  distinction  should  be  drawn 
between  couples  whose  union  is  institutionally  sanctioned  by  the  registration  of  their 
partnership  with  a  public  authority  and  couples  in  de  facto  cohabitation.  While  some 
Member  States  do  make  provision  for  such  de facto  unions,  they  should  be  considered 
separately  from  registered  partnerships,  which  have  an  official  character  that  makes  it 
possible to take account of their specific features and lay down rules on the subject in Union 
legislation.  To  ensure  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  barriers  to  the  free 
movement of people who have entered into a registered partnership need to be eliminated, 
particularly those creating difficulties for such couples in the administration and division of 
their  property.  In  order  to  achieve  those  objectives,  this  Regulation  should  bring  together 
provisions  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  acceptance, 
enforceability and enforcement of decisions, authentic instruments and court settlements. 

(17)  The Regulation should cover matters arising from the property consequences of registered 
partnerships. 'Registered partnership' should be defined here solely for the purpose of this 
Regulation. The actual substance of the concept should remain defined in the national laws 
of the Member States.  Nothing in this Regulation should oblige a Member State whose law 
does not know the institution of registered partnership to provide for it in its national law. 

(18)  The  scope  of  this  Regulation  should  include  all  civil-law  aspects  of  the  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  both  the  daily  management  of  the  partners' 

EN 

15 

   EN 

property and its liquidation, in particular as a result of the couple's separation or the death of 
one of the partners.  

(19)  This Regulation should not apply to areas of civil law other than the property consequences 
of registered partnerships. For reasons of clarity, a number of questions which could be seen 
as  having  a  link  with  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  should  be 
explicitly excluded from the scope of this Regulation. 

(20)  Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to questions of general legal capacity of the 
partners; however, this exclusion should not cover the specific powers and rights of either 
or  both  partners  with  regard  to  property,  either  as  between  themselves  or  as  regards  third 
parties, as these powers and rights should fall under the scope of the Regulation. 

(21) 

It  should  not  apply  to  other  preliminary  questions  such  as  the  existence,  validity  or 
recognition  of  a  registered  partnership,  which  is  covered  by  the  national  laws  of  the 
Member States, including their rules of private international law. 

(22)  As maintenance obligations between partners are governed by Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 
of  18  December  2008  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations23, they should be 
excluded from the scope of this Regulation, as should issues relating to the succession to the 
estate  of  a  deceased  partner,  that  are  covered  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  650/2012  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  July  2012  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law, 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  and  acceptance  and  enforcement  of  authentic 
instruments  in  matters  of  succession  and  on  the  creation  of  a  European  Certificate  of 
Succession24. 

(23) 

Issues of entitlements to transfer or adjustment between partners of rights to retirement or 
disability  pension,  whatever  their  nature,  accrued  during  the  registered  partnership  and 
which have not generated pension income during the registered partnership are matters that 
should remain excluded from the scope of this Regulation, taking into account the specific 
systems  existing  in  the  Member  States.  However,  such  exception  should  remain  of  strict 
interpretation. Hence, this Regulation should govern in particular the issue of classification 
of  pension  assets,  the  amounts  that  have  already  been  paid  to  one  partner  during  the 
registered  partnership,  and  the  possible  compensation  that  would  be  granted  in  case  of 
pension subscribed with common assets.  

(24)  This  Regulation  should  allow  for  the  creation  or  the  transfer  resulting  from  the  property 
consequences of registered partnerships of a right in immoveable or moveable property as 
provided for in the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships. It 
should, however, not affect the limited number (‘numerus clausus ’) of rights in rem known 
in  the  national  law  of  some  Member  States.  A  Member  State  should  not  be  required  to 
recognise a right in rem relating to property located in that Member State if the right in rem 
in question is not known in its law. 

(25)  However, in order to allow the partners to enjoy in another Member State the rights which 
have  been  created  or  transferred  to  them  as  a  result  of  the  property  consequences  of  a 
registered  partnership,  this  Regulation  should  provide  for  the  adaptation  of  an  unknown 
right in rem to the closest equivalent right under the law of that other Member State. In the 
context of such an adaptation, account should be taken of the aims and the interests pursued 
by the specific right in rem and the effects attached to it. For the purposes of determining 

23 
24 

OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 
OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 107. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
the closest equivalent national right, the authorities or competent persons of the State whose 
law applied to the property consequences of the registered partnership may be contacted for 
further  information  on  the  nature  and  the  effects  of  the  right.  To  that  end,  the  existing 
networks in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters could be used, 
as well as any other available means facilitating the understanding of foreign law. 

(26)  The  adaptation  of  unknown  rights  in  rem  as  explicitly  provided  for  by  this  Regulation 
should  not  preclude  other  forms  of  adaptation  in  the  context  of  the  application  of 
this Regulation.  

(27)  The  requirements  for  the  recording  in  a  register  of  a  right  in  immoveable  or  moveable 
property  should  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of this  Regulation.  It  should  therefore  be  the 
law of the Member State in which the register is kept (for immoveable property, the lex rei 
sitae) which determines under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried 
out and which authorities, such as land registers or notaries, are in charge of checking that 
all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or 
contains the necessary information. In particular, the authorities may check that the right of 
a partner to a property mentioned in the document presented for registration is a right which 
is recorded as such in the register or which is otherwise demonstrated in accordance with 
the law of the Member State in which the register is kept. In order to avoid duplication of 
documents, the registration authorities should accept such documents drawn up in another 
Member  State  by  the  competent  authorities  the  circulation  of  which  is  provided  by  this 
Regulation. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from asking 
the  person  applying  for  registration  to  provide  such  additional  information,  or  to  present 
such additional documents, as are required under the law of the Member State in which the 
register is kept, for instance information or documents relating to the payment of revenue. 
The  competent  authority  may  indicate  to  the  person  applying  for  registration  how  the 
missing information or documents can be provided. 

(28)  The effects of the recording of a right in a register should also be excluded from the scope 
of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register 
is kept which determines whether the recording is, for instance, declaratory or constitutive 
in  effect.  Thus,  where,  for  example,  the  acquisition  of  a  right  in  immoveable  property 
requires a recording in a register under the law of the Member State in which the register is 
kept in order to ensure the erga omnes effect of registers or to protect legal transactions, the 
moment of such acquisition should be governed by the law of that Member State.  

(29)  This  Regulation  should  respect  the  different  systems  for  dealing  with  matters  of  the 
property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  applied  in  the  Member  States.  For  the 
purposes of this Regulation, the term ‘court’ should therefore be given a broad meaning so 
as to cover not only courts in the true sense of the word, exercising judicial functions, but 
also  for  example  notaries  in  some  Member States  who,  in  certain  matters  of  the  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  exercise  judicial  functions  like  courts,  and  the 
notaries and legal professionals who, in some Member States, exercise judicial functions in 
dealing with the property consequences of a registered partnership by delegation of power 
by  a  court.  All  courts  as  defined  in  this  Regulation  should  be  bound  by  the  rules  of 
jurisdiction  set  out  in  this  Regulation.  Conversely,  the  term  ‘court’  should  not  cover  non-
judicial authorities of a Member State empowered under national law to deal with matters of 
the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  such  as  the  notaries  in  most 
Member States where, as is usually the case, they are not exercising judicial functions. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

(30)  This Regulation should allow all notaries who have competence in matters of the property 
consequences of registered partnerships in the Member States to exercise such competence. 
Whether or not the notaries in a given Member State are bound by the rules of jurisdiction 
set  out  in  this  Regulation  should  depend  on  whether  or  not  they  are  covered  by  the  term 
‘court’ for the purposes of this Regulation. 

(31)  Acts issued by notaries in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in 
the Member States should circulate under this Regulation. When notaries exercise judicial 
functions  they  are  bound  by  the  rules  of  jurisdiction,  and  the  decisions  they  give  should 
circulate in accordance with the provisions on recognition, enforceability and enforcement 
of  decisions.  When  notaries  do  not  exercise  judicial  functions  they  are  not  bound  by  the 
rules of jurisdiction, and the authentic instruments they issue should circulate in accordance 
with the provisions on authentic instruments. 

(32)  To  reflect  the  increasing  mobility  of  couples  and  facilitate  the  proper  administration  of 
justice,  the  rules  on  jurisdiction  in  this  Regulation  should  enable  citizens  to  have  their 
various related procedures handled by the courts of the same Member State. To that end, the 
Regulation  should  seek  to  concentrate  the  jurisdiction  on  the  property  consequences  of 
registered  partnerships  in  the  Member  State  whose  courts  are  called  upon  to  handle  the 
succession of a partner in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 or the dissolution 
or annulment of the registered partnership.  

(33)  The Regulation should provide that, where proceedings on the succession of a partner are 
pending before the court of a Member State seised under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, the 
courts of that State should have jurisdiction to rule on matters of the property consequences 
of registered partnerships arising in connection with that succession case.  

(34)  Similarly,  matters  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  arising  in 
connection  with  proceedings  pending  before  the  court  of  a  Member  State  seised  with  an 
application for dissolution or annulment of a registered partnership should be dealt with by 
the courts of that Member State, if the partners so agree. 

(35)  Where  matters  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  are  not  linked  to 
proceedings pending before the court of a Member State on the succession of a partner or 
the  dissolution  or  annulment  of  the  registered  partnership,  this  Regulation  should  provide 
for a scale of connecting factors for the purposes of determining jurisdiction, starting with 
the habitual residence of the partners at the time the court is seised. The last step of the scale 
of  jurisdiction  connecting  factors  should  point  to  the  Member  State  under  whose  law  the 
mandatory  registration  of  the  partnership  was  made  in  order  to  establish  it.  These 
connecting  factors  are  set  in  view  of  the  increasing  mobility  of  citizens  and  in  order  to 
ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the partners and the Member State in 
which jurisdiction is exercised. 

(36)  Given that the institution of registered partnership is not provided for in all Member States, 
the courts of  a Member State whose law does not provide for the institution of registered 
partnership  may  exceptionally  need  to  decline  jurisdiction  under  this  Regulation.  In  such 
case,  the  courts  shall  act  swiftly  and  the  party  concerned  should  have  the  possibility  to 
submit the case in any other Member State that has a connecting factor granting jurisdiction, 
irrespective of the order of these jurisdiction grounds, while at the same time respecting the 
parties' autonomy. Any court seised after a declining of jurisdiction, other than the courts of 
the  Member  State  under  whose  law  the  registered  partnership  was  created,  which  has 
jurisdiction on the basis of a choice of court agreement or the appearance of the defendant, 
may also exceptionally need to decline jurisdiction under the same conditions. Finally, if no 

EN 

18 

   EN 

court  has  jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the  situation  in  light  of  the  other  provisions  of  this 
Regulation, an alternative jurisdictional rule has been included to avoid any risk of denial of 
justice.  

(37) 

In  order  to  increase  legal  certainty,  predictability  and  the  autonomy  of  the  parties,  this 
Regulation should enable, under certain circumstances, the parties to conclude a choice of 
court agreement in favour of the courts of the Member State of the applicable law or of the 
courts of the Member State under whose law the registered partnership was created.   

(38)  This Regulation should not prevent the parties from settling the case amicably out of court, 
for instance before a notary, in a Member State of their choice where this is possible under 
the  law  of  that  Member  State.  This  should  be  the  case  even  if  the  law  applicable  to  the 
property consequences of the registered partnership is not the law of that Member State.  

(39) 

(40) 

(41) 

(42) 

In order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise 
jurisdiction in relation to the property consequences of registered partnerships of partners, 
this  Regulation  should  set  out  exhaustively  the  grounds  on  which  such  subsidiary 
jurisdiction may be exercised. 

In  order  to  remedy,  in  particular,  situations  of  denial  of  justice,  this  Regulation  should 
provide  for  a  forum  necessitatis  allowing  a  court  of  a  Member  State,  on  an  exceptional 
basis,  to  rule  on  the  property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership  which  is  closely 
connected  with  a  third  State.  Such  an  exceptional  basis  may  be  deemed  to  exist  when 
proceedings  prove  impossible  in  the  third  State  in  question,  for  example  because  of  civil 
war, or when a partner cannot reasonably be expected to initiate or conduct proceedings in 
that State. Jurisdiction based on forum necessitatis should, however, be exercised only if the 
case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised. 

In  the  interests  of  the  harmonious  functioning  of  justice,  the  giving  of  irreconcilable 
decisions in different Member States should be avoided. To that end, this Regulation should 
provide for general procedural rules similar to those of other Union instruments in the area 
of judicial cooperation in civil matters.One such procedural rule is a lis pendens rule, which 
will  come  into  play  if  the  same  case  on  the  property  consequences  of  a  registered 
partnership is brought before different courts in different Member States. That rule will then 
determine which court should proceed to deal with the case. 

In order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered 
by the internal market, the Regulation should enable partners to know in advance which law 
will  apply  to  the  property  consequences  of  their  registered  partnership.  Harmonised 
conflict-of-law rules should therefore be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results. 
The main rule should ensure that the property consequences of a registered partnership are 
governed  by  a  predictable  law  with  which  it  is  closely  connected.  For  reasons  of  legal 
certainty and in order to avoid fragmentation, the law applicable should govern the property 
consequences  of  the  registered  partnership  as  a  whole,  that  is  to  say,  all  the  property 
consequences covered by the registered partnership, irrespective of the nature of the assets 
and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State. 

(43)  The law determined by this Regulation should apply even if it is not the law of a Member 

State. 

(44)  To facilitate to partners the management of their property, this Regulation should authorise 
them  to  choose  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  their  registered 
partnership, regardless of the nature or location of the property, among the laws with which 
they have close links such as because of their habitual residence or nationality. However, in 

EN 

19 

   EN 

order  to  avoid  depriving  the  choice  of  law  of  any  effect  and  thereby  leaving  the  partners 
with a legal vacuum, such choice of law should be limited to a law that attaches property 
consequences  to registered partnerships. This choice  may be  made  at any moment, before 
the registration of the partnership, at the time of the registration of the partnership or during 
the course of the registered partnership.  

(45)  To ensure the legal certainty of transactions and to prevent any change of the law applicable 
to  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  being  made  without  the  partners 
being notified, no change of law applicable to the property consequences of the registered 
partnership should be made except at the express desire of the parties. Such a change by the 
partners  should  not  have  retrospective  effect  unless  they  expressly  so  stipulate.  Whatever 
the case, it may not infringe the rights of third parties.  

(46)  Rules  on  the  material  and  formal  validity  of  the  agreement  on  a  choice  of  applicable  law 
should be defined so that the informed choice of the partners is facilitated and their consent 
is respected with a view to ensuring legal certainty as well as better access to justice. As far 
as  formal  validity  is  concerned,  certain  safeguards  should  be  introduced  to  ensure  that 
partners  are  aware  of  the  implications  of  their  choice.  The  agreement  on  the  choice  of 
applicable  law  should  at  least  be  expressed  in  writing,  dated  and  signed  by  both  parties. 
However,  if  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  two  partners  have  their  habitual 
residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal  rules, those 
rules  should  be  complied  with.  For  example,  such  additional  formal  rules  may  exist  in  a 
Member State where the agreement is inserted in a partnership property agreement. If, at the 
time  the  agreement  is  concluded,  the  partners  are  habitually  resident  in  different  Member 
States  which  lay  down  different  formal  rules,  compliance  with  the  formal  rules  of  one  of 
these  States  should  suffice.  If,  at  the  time  the  agreement  is  concluded,  only  one  of  the 
partners is habitually resident in a Member State which lays down additional formal rules, 
these rules should be complied with.  

(47)  A  partnership  property  agreement  is  a  type  of  disposition  on  partners'  property  the 
admissibility and acceptance of which vary among the Member States. In order to make it 
easier  for  property  rights  acquired  as  a  result  of  a  partnership  property  agreement  to  be 
accepted  in  the  Member  States,  rules  on  the  formal  validity  of  partnership  property 
agreements should be defined. At least the agreement should be expressed in writing, dated 
and  signed  by  both  parties.  However,  the  agreement  should  also  fulfil  additional  formal 
validity  requirements  set  out  in  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of 
registered partnership as determined by the Regulation and in the law of the Member State 
in which the partners have their habitual residence. This Regulation should also determine 
which law is to govern the material validity of such agreement.   

(48)  Where no applicable law is chosen, and with a view to reconciling predictability and legal 
certainty with consideration of the life actually lived by the couple, this Regulation should 
provide  that  the  law  of  the  State  under  whose  law  the  mandatory  registration  of  the 
partnership was made in order to establish it should apply to the property consequences of 
the registered partnership. 

(49)  Where  this  Regulation  refers  to  nationality  as  a  connecting  factor,  the  question  of  how  to 
consider a person having multiple nationalities is a preliminary question which falls outside 
the scope of this Regulation and should be left to national law, including, where applicable, 
international  Conventions,  in  full  observance  of  the  general  principles  of  the  European 
Union. This consideration should have no effect on the validity of a choice of law made in 
accordance with this Regulation. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

(50)  With  regard  to  the  determination  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  a 
registered  partnership  in  the  absence  of  a  choice  of  law  and  a  partnership  property 
agreement, the judicial authority of a Member State, at the request of either of the partners, 
should, in exceptional cases – where the partners have moved to the State of their habitual 
residence for a long duration – be able to arrive at the conclusion that the law of that State 
may apply if the partners have relied on it. Whatever the case, it may not infringe the rights 
of third parties. 

(51)  The  law  determined  as  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  the  registered 
partnership should govern such consequences from the classification of property of one or 
both  partners  into  different  categories  during  the  registered  partnership  and  after  its 
dissolution, to the liquidation of the property. It should include the effects of the property 
consequences  of  the  registered  partnership  on  a  legal  relationship  between  a  partner  and 
third  parties.  However  the  law  applicable  to  property  consequences  of  registered 
partnerships may be invoked against a third party by a partner to govern such effects only 
when the legal relations between the partner and the third party arose at a time where the 
third party knew or should have known of that law.  

(52)  Considerations of public interest, such as the protection of a Member State's political, social 
or economic organisation, should justify giving the courts and other competent authorities 
of the Member States the possibility, in exceptional cases, of applying exceptions based on 
overriding  mandatory  provisions.  Accordingly,  the  concept  of  "overriding  mandatory 
provisions" should cover rules of imperative nature such as rules for the protection of the 
family  home.  However,  this  exception  to  the  application  of  the  law  applicable  to  the 
property consequences of the registered partnership requires a strict interpretation in order 
to remain compatible with the general objective of this Regulation.  

(53)  Considerations  of  public  interest  should  also  allow  courts  and  other  competent  authorities 
dealing with matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member 
States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, 
in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public 
policy  (ordre  public)  of  the  Member  State  concerned.  However,  the  courts  or  other 
competent authorities should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to set 
aside the law of another State or to refuse to recognise — or, as the case may be, accept — 
or enforce a decision, an authentic instrument or a court settlement from another Member 
State  when  doing  so  would  be  contrary  to  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European Union, and in particular Article 21 thereof on the principle of non-discrimination. 

(54)  Since  there  are  States  in  which  two  or  more  systems  of  law  or  sets  of  rules  concerning 
matters  governed  by  this  Regulation  coexist,  there  should  be  a  provision  governing  the 
extent to which this Regulation applies in the different territorial units of those States.   

(55) 

(56) 

In the light of its general objective, which is the mutual recognition of decisions given in the 
Member  States  in  matters  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  this 
Regulation  should  lay  down  rules  relating  to  the  recognition,  enforceability  and 
enforcement of decisions similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial 
cooperation in civil matters.   

In order to take into account the different systems for dealing with matters of the property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships  in  the  Member  States,  this  Regulation  should 
guarantee the acceptance and enforceability in all Member States of authentic instruments in 
matters of property consequences of registered partnerships.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

(57)  Authentic instruments should have the same evidentiary effects in another Member State as 
they have in the Member State of origin, or the most comparable effects. When determining 
the evidentiary effects of a given authentic instrument in another Member State or the most 
comparable effects, reference should be made to the nature and the scope of the evidentiary 
effects  of  the  authentic  instrument  in  the  Member  State  of  origin.  The  evidentiary  effects 
which  a  given  authentic  instrument  should  have  in  another  Member  State  will  therefore 
depend on the law of the Member State of origin. 

(58)  The  ‘authenticity’  of  an  authentic  instrument  should  be  an  autonomous  concept  covering 
elements  such  as  the  genuineness  of  the  instrument,  the  formal  prerequisites  of  the 
instrument, the powers of the authority drawing up the instrument and the procedure under 
which the instrument is drawn up. It should also cover the factual elements recorded in the 
authentic instrument by the authority concerned, such as the fact that the parties indicated 
appeared  before  that  authority  on  the  date  indicated  and  that  they  made  the  declarations 
indicated. A party  wishing to challenge the  authenticity of an authentic instrument should 
do so before the competent court in the Member State of origin of the authentic instrument 
under the law of that Member State. 

(59)  The term ‘the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument’ should be 
interpreted as referring to the contents as to substance recorded in the authentic instrument. 
A  party  wishing  to  challenge  the  legal  acts  or  legal  relationship  recorded  in  an  authentic 
instrument should do so before the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation, which 
should  decide  on  the  challenge  in  accordance  with  the  law  applicable  to  the  property 
consequences of the registered partnership. 

(60) 

If  a  question  relating  to  the  legal  acts  or  legal  relationships  recorded  in  an  authentic 
instrument  is  raised  as  an  incidental  question  in  proceedings  before  a  court  of  a 
Member State, that court should have jurisdiction over that question.  

(61)  An  authentic  instrument  which  is  being  challenged  should  not  produce  any  evidentiary 
effects in a Member State other than the Member State of origin as long as the challenge is 
pending. If the challenge concerns only a specific matter relating to the legal acts or legal 
relationships  recorded  in  the  authentic  instrument,  the  authentic  instrument  in  question 
should not produce any evidentiary effects in a Member State other than the Member State 
of origin with regard to the matter being challenged as long as the challenge is pending. An 
authentic instrument which has been declared invalid as a result of a challenge should cease 
to produce any evidentiary effects. 

(62)  Should  an  authority,  in  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  be  presented  with  two 
incompatible  authentic  instruments,  it  should  assess  the  question  as  to  which  authentic 
instrument,  if  any,  should  be  given  priority,  taking  into  account  the  circumstances  of  the 
particular case. Where it is not clear from those circumstances which authentic instrument, 
if  any,  should  be  given  priority,  the  question  should  be  determined  by  the  courts  having 
jurisdiction under this Regulation or, where the question is raised as an incidental question 
in  the  course  of  proceedings,  by  the  court  seised  of  those  proceedings.  In  the  event  of 
incompatibility between an authentic instrument and a decision, regard should be had to the 
grounds of non-recognition of decisions under this Regulation. 

(63)  However, the recognition and enforcement of a decision on the property consequences of a 
registered partnership under this Regulation should not in any way imply the recognition of 
the registered partnership which gave rise to the decision. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

(64)  The relationship between this Regulation and the bilateral or multilateral conventions on the 
property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships  to  which  the  Member  States  are  party 
should be specified. 

(65) 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  provision  should  be  made  for  an 
obligation  requiring  Member  States  to  communicate  certain  information  regarding  their 
legislation and procedures relating to the property consequences of registered partnerships 
within  the  framework  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters 
established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC25. In order to allow for the timely publication 
in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  of  all  information  of  relevance  for  the 
practical application of this Regulation, the Member States should also communicate such 
information to the Commission before this Regulation starts to apply. 

(66)  Equally, to facilitate the application of this Regulation and to allow for the use of modern 
communication technologies, standard forms should be prescribed for the attestations to be 
provided in connection with the application for a declaration of enforceability of a decision, 
authentic instrument or court settlement. 

(67) 

(68) 

In calculating the periods and time limits provided for in this Regulation, Regulation (EEC, 
Euratom)  No  1182/71  of  the  Council  of  3  June  1971  determining  the  rules  applicable  to 
periods, dates and time limits26 should apply. 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation, 
implementing  powers  should  be  conferred  on  the  Commission  with  regard  to  the 
establishment  and  subsequent  amendment  of  the  attestations  and  forms  pertaining  to  the 
declaration  of  enforceability  of  decisions,  court  settlements  and  authentic  instruments. 
Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011  laying  down  the  rules  and 
general  principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by  Member  States  of  the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers27.  

(69)  The advisory procedure should be used for the adoption of implementing acts establishing 
and  subsequently  amending  the  attestations  and  forms  provided  for  in  this  Regulation  in 
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

(70)  The  objectives  of  this  Regulation,  namely  the  free  movement  of  persons  in  the  European 
Union,  the  opportunity  for  partners  to  arrange  their  property  relations  in  respect  of 
themselves and others during their life as a couple and when liquidating their property, and 
greater  predictability  and  legal  certainty,  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States  but  can  rather,  by  reason  of  the  scale  and  effects  of  this  Regulation,  be  better 
achieved  at  Union  level,  where  appropriate  by  means  of  enhanced  cooperation  between 
Member States. Under the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on 
European  Union,  the  Union  has  therefore  competence  to  act.  In  accordance  with  the 
principle of proportionality set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what 
is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. 

(71)  This  Regulation  respects  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the  principles  recognised  in  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  in  particular  Articles  7,  9,  17,  21 
and 47 covering, respectively, respect for private and family life, the right to found a family 
according to national laws, property rights, the principle of non-discrimination and the right 

25 
26 
27 

OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25. 
OJ L 124 8.6.1971, p. 1. 
OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. This Regulation must be applied by the courts and 
other  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  in  observance  of  those  rights  and 
principles. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Chapter I 
Scope and definitions  

Article 1 
Scope 

1. 

This  Regulation  shall  apply  to  matters  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered 
partnerships.  

It shall not apply to revenue, customs or administrative matters.  

2. 

The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation:  

(a) 

the legal capacity of partners, 

(b)  

the existence, validity or recognition of a registered partnership, 

(c)  maintenance obligations, 

(d) 

the succession to the estate of the deceased partner, 

(e) 

social security, 

(f) 

the entitlement to transfer or adjustment between partners in the case of dissolution 
or  annulment  of  the  registered  partnership,  of  rights  to  retirement  or  disability 
pension  accrued  during  the  registered  partnership  and  which  have  not  generated 
pension income during the registered partnership, 

(g) 

the nature of rights in rem relating to a property, and 

(h) 

any recording in a register of rights in immoveable or moveable property, including 
the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to 
record such rights in a register. 

Article 2 
Competence in matters of property consequences of registered partnerships within the 
Member States 

This Regulation shall not affect the competence of the authorities of the Member States to deal with 
matters of property consequences of registered partnerships.  

1. 

For the purposes of this Regulation: 

Article 3 
Definitions 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

 'registered  partnership'  means  the  regime  governing  the  shared  life  of  two  people 
which is provided for in law, the registration of which is mandatory under that law 
and which fulfills the legal formalities required by that law for its creation;  

'property consequences of a registered partnership' means the set of rules concerning 
the property relationships of the partners, between themselves and in their relations 
with third parties, as a result of the legal relationship created by the registration of 
the partnership or its dissolution; 

'partnership  property  agreement'  means  any  agreement  between  partners  or  future 
partners  by  which  they  organise  the  property  consequences  of  their  registered 
partnership;  

'authentic instrument' means a document in a matter of the property consequences of 
a  registered  partnership  which  has  been  formally  drawn  up  or  registered  as  an 
authentic instrument in a Member State and the authenticity of which: 

(i) 

relates to the signature and the content of the authentic instrument, and 

(ii)  has  been  established  by  a  public  authority  or  other  authority  empowered  for 

that purpose by the Member State of origin;; 

'decision'  means  any  decision  in  a  matter  of  the  property  consequences  of  a 
registered  partnership  given  by  a  court  of  a  Member  State,  whatever  the  decision 
may be called, including a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an 
officer of the court; 

'court settlement’ means a settlement in a matter of the property consequences of a 
registered  partnership  which  has  been  approved  by  a  court,  or  concluded  before  a 
court in the course of proceedings; 

'Member State of origin' means the Member State in which, as the case may be, the 
decision has been given, the authentic instrument drawn up,  or the court settlement 
approved or concluded; 

(h) 

'Member State of enforcement' means the Member State in which recognition and/or 
enforcement of the decision, authentic instrument, or court settlement is requested 

2. 

For the purposes of this Regulation, the term 'court' means  any judicial authority and all 
other  authorities  and  legal  professionals  with  competence  in  matters  of  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships  which  exercise  judicial  functions  or  act  by 
delegation of power by a judicial authority or under its control,  provided that such other 
authorities  and  legal  professionals  offer  guarantees  with  regard  to  impartiality  and  the 
right  of  all  parties  to  be  heard,  and  provided  that  their  decisions  under  the  law  of  the 
Member State in which they operate:  

(i)  may be made the subject of an appeal to or review by a judicial authority; and  

(ii)   have a similar force and effect as a decision of a judicial authority on the same 

matter. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

The  Member  States  shall  notify  the  Commission  of  the  other  authorities  and  legal 
professionals referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 64. 

Chapter II 
Jurisdiction  

Article 4 
Jurisdiction in the event of the death of one of the partners 

Where a court of a Member State is seised in matters of the succession of a registered partner under 
Regulation (EU) n° 650/2012, the courts of that State shall have jurisdiction to rule on matters of 
the property consequences of the registered partnership arising in connection with that succession 
case.  

Article 5 
Jurisdiction in cases of dissolution or annulment 

1. 

2. 

Where  a  court  of  a  Member  State  is  seised  to  rule  on  the  dissolution  or  annulment  of  a 
registered  partnership,  the  courts  of  that  State  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  rule  on  the 
property consequences of the registered partnership arising in connection with that case of 
dissolution or annulment, where the partners so agree.  

If the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 is concluded before the court is seised to rule 
on matters of the property consequences of the registered partnership, the agreement shall 
comply with Article 7. 

Article 6 
Jurisdiction in other cases 

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction according to Articles 4 and 5 or in cases other 
than  those  provided  for  in  Article  4  or  5,  jurisdiction  to  rule  on  the  property  consequences  of  a 
registered partnership shall lie with the courts of the Member State: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

in whose territory the partners are habitually resident at the time the court is seised, 
or failing that, 

in whose territory the partners were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them 
still resides there at the time the court is seised, or failing that,  

in whose territory the respondent is habitually resident at the time the court is seised, 
or failing that, 

(d)  of the partners' common nationality at the time the court is seised, or failing that, 

(e)  under whose law the registered partnership was created. 

Article 7 
Choice of court 

1. 

In cases covered by Article 6, the parties may agree that the courts of the Member State 
whose  law  is  applicable  in  accordance  with  Articles  22  or  26(1)  or  the  courts  of  the 

EN 

26 

   EN 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

Member State under whose law the registered partnership was created shall have exclusive 
jurisdiction to rule on the property consequences of their registered partnership.  

The  agreement  shall  be  expressed  in  writing  and  dated  and  signed  by  the  parties.  Any 
communication  by  electronic  means  which  provides  a  durable  record  of  the  agreement 
shall be deemed equivalent to writing.  

Article 8 
Jurisdiction based on the appearance of the defendant 

Apart  from  jurisdiction  derived  from  other  provisions  of  this  Regulation,  a  court  of  a 
Member State whose law is applicable in accordance with Articles 22, 26(1), and before 
which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply 
where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or in cases covered by Article 4. 

Before assuming jurisdiction under paragraph 1, the court shall ensure that the defendant 
is informed of his right to contest the jurisdiction and of the consequences of entering or 
not entering an appearance. 

Article 9  
Alternative jurisdiction 

If a court of the Member State that has jurisdiction under Articles 4, 5 , 6 (a) (b) (c) or (d) 
holds  that  its  law  does  not  provide  for  the  institution  of  registered  partnership,  it  may 
decline jurisdition. If the court decides to decline, it shall do so without undue delay. 

Where a court referred to in paragraph 1 declines jurisdiction and where the parties agree 
to confer jurisdiction to the courts of any other Member State in accordance with Article 7, 
jurisdiction  to  rule  on  the  property  consequences  of  the  registered  partnership  shall  lie 
with the courts of that Member State.  

In other cases, jurisdiction to rule on the property consequences of a registered partnership 
shall lie with the courts of any other Member State under Article 6 or 8.  

3. 

This Article shall not apply when the parties have obtained a dissolution or annulment of a 
registered partnership which is capable of recognition in the Member State of the forum. 28 

Article 10  
Subsidiary jurisdiction 

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, or when all of 
the  courts  according  to  Article  9  have  declined  jurisdiction  and  no  court  of  a  Member  State  has 
jurisdiction  under  Article  6(e),  Articles  7  and  8,  the  courts  of  a  Member  State  shall  have 
jurisdiction in so far as immoveable property of one or both partners are located in the territory of 
that Member State, but in that event the court seised shall have jurisdiction to rule only in respect 
of the immoveable property  in question.  

Article 11  
Forum necessitatis 

Where  no  court  of  a  Member  State  has  jurisdiction  pursuant  to    Articles 4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  and  10  or 
when all of the courts according to Article 9 have declined jurisdiction and no court of a Member 

28  

Similar  language  ("capable  of  recognition")  can  be  found  in  Brussels  I  (recast)  Regulation,  Article  33(1)(a) 
and (3), Article 34(1)(b) and recital 23.   

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
State  has  jurisdiction  under  Articles  6(e),  7,  8  and  10,  the  courts  of  a  Member  State  may,  on  an 
exceptional  basis,  rule  on  the  property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership  if  proceedings 
cannot reasonably be brought or conducted or would be impossible in a third State with which the 
case is closely connected.  

The case must have a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised. 

Article 12 
Counterclaims 

The court in which proceedings are pending pursuant to Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 or 11 shall also 
have jurisdiction to rule on a counterclaim if it falls within the scope of this Regulation.  

Article 13 
Limitation of proceedings 

1. 

2. 

Where  the  estate  of  the  deceased  whose  succession  falls  under  Regulation  (EU)  No 
650/2012 comprises assets located in a third State, the court seised to rule on the property 
consequences of a registered partnership may, at the request of one of the parties, decide 
not to rule on one or more of such assets if it may be expected that its decision in respect 
of those assets will not be recognised and, where applicable, declared enforceable in that 
third State. 

Paragraph 1  shall  not affect  the  right of the  parties  to  limit  the  scope  of  the  proceedings 
under the law of the Member State of the court seised. 

Article 14  
Seising a court 

For the purpose of this Chapter, a court shall be deemed to be seised: 

 (a) 

(b) 

(c) 

at  the  time  when  the  document  instituting  the  proceedings  or  an  equivalent  document  is 
lodged with the court, provided that the applicant  has not subsequently failed to take the 
steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant, or 

if  the document has to be served before being lodged with the court, at the time when it is 
received  by  the  authority  responsible  for  service,  provided  that  the  applicant  has  not 
subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged 
with the court; or 

if the proceedings are opened of the court's own motion, at the time when the decision to 
open the proceedings is taken by the court, or, where such a decision is not required, at the 
time when the case is registered by the court. 

Article 15  
Examination as to jurisdiction 

Where a court of a Member State is seised of a matter concerning the property consequences of a 
registered partnership over which it has no jurisdiction under this Regulation, it shall declare of its 
own motion that it has no jurisdiction. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Article 16 
Examination as to admissibility  

Where a defendant  habitually resident in a State  other  than  the  Member  State  where  the 
action was brought does not enter an appearance, the court having jurisdiction according 
to this Regulation shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant 
has  been  able  to  receive  the  document  instituting  the  proceedings  or  an  equivalent 
document in time to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to 
this end. 

Article  19  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1393/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  13 November  2007  on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters29 shall apply instead of paragraph 1 
of this article if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to 
be transmitted from one Member State to another pursuant to that Regulation. 

Where  Regulation  (EC)  No  1393/2007  is  not  applicable,  Article  15  of  the  Hague 
Convention  of  15 November  1965  on  the  service  abroad  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial 
documents  in  civil  or  commercial  matters  shall  apply  if  the  document  instituting  the 
proceedings  or  an  equivalent  document  had  to  be  transmitted  abroad  pursuant  to  that 
Convention. 

Article 17 
Lis pendens 

Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the parties are brought 
before courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of 
its  own  motion  stay  its  proceedings  until  such  time  as  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  first 
seised is established. 

In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, upon request by a court seised of the dispute, any 
other  court  seised  shall  without  delay  inform  the  former  court  of  the  date  when  it  was 
seised.. 

If the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first 
seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. 

Article 18 
Related actions 

Where  related  actions  are  pending  in  the  courts  of  different  Member  States,  any  court 
other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings. 

Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seised 
may  also,  on  the  application  of  one  of  the  parties,  decline  jurisdiction  if  the  court  first 
seised  has  jurisdiction  over  the  actions  in  question  and  its  law  permits  the  consolidation 
thereof. 

For the purposes of this article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely 
connected  that  it  is  expedient  to  hear  and  determine  them  together  to  avoid  the  risk  of 
irreconcilable decisions resulting from separate proceedings. 

29 

OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, p. 79. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
Article 19  
Provisional, including protective, measures 

Application  may  be  made  to  the  courts  of  a  Member  State  for  such  provisional,  including 
protective, measures as may be available under the law of that State, even if under this Regulation, 
the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. 

Chapter III 
Applicable law  

Article 20 
Universal application 

The law designated as applicable by this Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of 
a Member State. 

Article 21 
Unity of the applicable law 

The law applicable to the property consequences of a registered partnership shall apply to all assets 
that are subject to those consequences, regardless of where the assets are located. 

Article 22 
Choice of the applicable law 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

The partners or future partners may agree to designate or to change the law applicable to 
the property consequences of their registered partnership, provided that that law attaches 
property consequences to the institution of the registered partnership and that it is one of 
the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  law  of  the  State  where  the  partners  or  future  partners,  or  one  of  them,  is 
habitually resident at the time the agreement is concluded 

the  law  of  a  State  of  nationality  of  either  partner  or  future  partner  at  the  time  the 
agreement is concluded, or 

(c) 

the law of the State under whose law the registered partnership was created. 

Unless  the  partners  agree  otherwise,  a  change  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  property 
consequences  of  their  registered  partnership  made  during  the  partnership  shall  have 
prospective effect only. 

Any retroactive change of the applicable law under paragraph 2 shall not adversely affect 
the rights of third parties deriving from that law. 

Article 23 
Formal validity of the agreement on a choice of applicable law 

The agreement referred to in Article 22 shall be expressed in writing, dated and signed by 
both  partners.  Any communication by electronic means which  provides a durable record 
of the agreement shall be deemed equivalent to writing.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

However,  if  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  both  partners  have  their  habitual 
residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal requirements 
for partnership property agreements, those requirements shall apply. 

If the partners are habitually resident in different Member States at the time the agreement 
is  concluded  and  the  laws  of  those  States  provide  for  different  formal  requirements  for 
partnership  property  agreements,  the  agreement  shall  be  formally  valid  if  it  satisfies  the 
requirements of either of those laws.  

If  only  one  of  the  partners  is  habitually  resident  in  a  Member  State  at  the  time  the 
agreement  is  concluded  and  that  State  lays  down  additional  formal  requirements  for 
partnership property agreements, those requirements shall apply.  

Article 24 
Consent and material validity 

The existence and validity of an agreement on choice of law or of any term thereof, shall 
be determined by the law which would govern it under Article 22 of this Regulation if the 
agreement or term were valid. 

Nevertheless, a partner, in order to establish that he did not consent, may rely upon the law 
of the country in which he has his habitual residence at the time the court is seized if it 
appears from the circumstances that it would not be reasonable to determine the effect of 
his conduct in accordance with the law specified in paragraph 1. 

Article 25 
Formal validity of a partnership property agreement  

The  partnership  property  agreement  shall  be  expressed  in  writing,  dated  and  signed  by 
both  partners. Any communication by electronic means which  provides a  durable record 
of the agreement shall be deemed equivalent to writing.  

However,  if  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  both  partners  have  their  habitual 
residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal requirements 
for partnership property agreements, those requirements shall apply. 

If the partners are habitually resident in different Member States at the time the agreement 
is  concluded  and  the  laws  of  those  States  provide  for  different  formal  requirements  for 
partnership  property  agreements,  the  agreement  shall  be  formally  valid  if  it  satisfies  the 
requirements of either of those laws.  

If  only  one  of  the  partners  is  habitually  resident  in  a  Member  State  at  the  time  the 
agreement  is  concluded  and  that  State  lays  down  additional  formal  requirements  for 
partnership property agreements, those requirements shall apply. 

However,  if  the  law  applicable  to  the  property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership 
imposes additional formal requirements, those requirements shall apply 

Article 26 
Applicable law in the absence of choice by the parties 

In the absence of any agreement pursuant to Article 22, the law applicable to the property 
consequences of registered partnerships shall be the law of the State under whose law the 
registered partnership was created. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

By way of exception and upon application by either partner, the judicial authority having 
jurisdiction  to  rule  on  matters  of  the  property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership 
may  decide  that  the  law  of  a  State  other  than  the  State  whose  law  is  applicable  under 
paragraph 1 shall govern the property consequences of the registered partnership if the law 
of  that  other  State  attaches  property  consequences  to  the  institution  of  the  registered 
partnership and if the applicant demonstrates that: 

(a) 

 the  partners  maintained  their  last  common  habitual  residence  in  that  State  for  a 
significantly long period of time; and 

(b)  both partners had relied on the law of that other State in arranging or planning their 

property relations. 

The law of that other State shall apply as from the creation of the registered partnership, 
unless one partner disagrees. In the latter case, the law of that other State shall have effect 
as from the establishment of the last common habitual residence in that other State.  

The application of the law of the other State shall not adversely affect the rights of third 
parties deriving from the law applicable under paragraph 1. 

Paragraph  3  shall  not  apply  when  the  partners  have  concluded  a  partnership  property 
agreement before the establishment of their last common habitual residence in that other 
State. 

Article 27  
Scope of the applicable law 

The law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships under this Regulation 
shall determine, inter alia:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

the classification of property of either or both partners into different categories during and 
after the registered partnership,  

the transfer of property from one category to the other,  

the responsibility of one partner for liabilities and debts of the other partner,   

the powers, rights and obligations of either or both partners with regard to property,  

the partition, distribution or liquidation of the property upon dissolution of the registered 
partnership,   

the effects of the property consequences of registered partnerships on a legal relationship 
between a partner and third parties, and 

(g) 

the material validity of a partnership property agreement. 

Article 28 
Effects in respect of third parties 

1. 

Notwithstanding  Article  27(f),  the  law  that  governs  the  property  consequences  of  a 
registered partnership between the partners may not be invoked by a partner against a third 

EN 

32 

   EN 

party in a dispute between the third party and either or both of the partners unless the third 
party knew or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have known of that law.  

2. 

The third party is deemed to possess this knowledge, if 

(a) 

the law  that  governs  the  property consequences of the registered partnership is the 
law of  

(i) 

the State whose law is applicable to the transaction between a partner and the 
third party,  

(ii) 

the State where the contracting partner and the third party have their habitual 
residence or,  

(iii)   in  cases  involving  immoveable  property,  the  State  in  which  the  property  is 

situated, 

or  

(b) 

either  partner  had  complied  with  the  applicable  requirements  for  disclosure  or 
registration of the property consequences of the registered partnership specified by 
the law of: 

(i) 

the State whose law is applicable to the transaction between a partner and the 
third party 

(ii) 

the State where the contracting partner and the third party have their habitual 
residence or,  

(iii)   in  cases  involving  immoveable  property,    the  State  in  which  the  property  is 

situated  

3. 

Where the law that governs the property consequences of a registered partnership cannot 
be  invoked  by  a  partner  against  a  third  party  by  virtue  of  paragraph  1,  the  property 
consequences of the registered partnership in respect of the third party will be governed: 

(a)  by the law of the State whose law is applicable to the transaction between a partner 

and the third party; or 

(b) 

in cases involving immoveable property or registered assets or rights, by the law of 
the  State  in  which  the  property  is  situated  or  in  which  the  assets  or  rights  are 
registered 

Article 29  
Adaptation of rights in rem 

Where  a  person  invokes  a  right  in  rem  to  which  he  is  entitled  under  the  law  applicable  to  the 
property  consequences  of  a  registered  partnership  and  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the 
right is invoked does not know the right in rem in question, that right shall, if necessary and to the 
extent possible, be adapted to the closest equivalent right under the law of that State, taking into 
account the aims and the interests pursued by the specific right in rem and the effects attached to it. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

Article 30 
Overriding mandatory provisions 

1. 

2. 

Nothing  in  this  Regulation  shall  restrict  the  application  of  the  overriding  mandatory 
provisions of the law of the forum. 

Overriding  mandatory  provisions  are  provisions  the  respect  for  which  is  regarded  as 
crucial by a Member State for safeguarding its public interests, such as its political, social 
or economic organisation, to such an extent that they are applicable to any situation falling 
within  their  scope,  irrespective  of  the  law  otherwise  applicable  to  the  property 
consequences of a registered partnership under this Regulation. 

Article 31 
Public policy  

The application of a provision of the law of any State designated by this Regulation may be refused 
only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum. 

Article 32 
Exclusion of renvoi 

The application of the law of any State specified by this Regulation means the application of the 
rules of law in force in that State other than its rules of private international law. 

Article 33 
States with more than one legal system - territorial conflicts of laws 

1. 

Where  the  law  specified  by  this  Regulation  is  that  of  a  State  which  comprises  several 
territorial  units  each  of  which  has  its  own  rules  of  law  in  respect  of  the  property 
consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  the  internal  conflict  of  laws  rules  of  that  State 
shall determine the relevant territorial unit whose rules of law shall apply. 

2. 

In the absence of such internal conflict of laws rules: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

any reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes 
of  determining  the  law  applicable  pursuant  to  provisions  referring  to  the  habitual 
residence of the partners, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in 
which the partners have their habitual residence; 

any reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes 
of determining the law applicable pursuant to provisions referring to the nationality 
of the partners, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit with which 
the partners have the closest connection; 

any reference to the law of the State referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for the purposes 
of determining the law applicable pursuant to any other provisions referring to other 
elements as connecting factors, be construed as referring to the law of the territorial 
unit in which the relevant element is located. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

Article 34 
States with more than one legal system - inter-personal conflicts of laws 

In relation to a State which has two or more systems of law or sets of rules applicable to different 
categories  of  persons  in  respect  of  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  any 
reference to the law of such a State shall be construed as referring to the system of law or set of 
rules determined by the rules in force in that State. In the absence of such rules, the system of law 
or the set of rules with which the partners have the closest connection shall apply.  

Article 35 
Non-application of this Regulation to internal conflicts of laws 

A Member State which comprises several territorial units each of which has its own rules of law in 
respect of the property consequences of registered partnerships shall not be required to apply this 
Regulation to conflicts of laws arising between such units only. 

Chapter IV 
Recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions 

Article 36 
Recognition 

1. 

2. 

3. 

A  decision  given  in  a  Member  State  shall  be  recognised  in  the  other  Member  States 
without any special procedure being required.  

Any  interested  party  who  raises  the  recognition  of  a  decision  as  the  principal  issue  in  a 
dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Articles 44 to 57, apply for 
the decision to be recognised. 

If  the  outcome  of  the  proceedings  in  a  court  of  a  Member  State  depends  on  the 
determination  of  an  incidental  question  of  recognition,  that  court  shall  have  jurisdiction 
over that question. 

Article 37 
Grounds of non-recognition 

A decision shall not be recognised: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

if  such  recognition  is  manifestly  contrary  to  public  policy  (ordre  public)  in  the  Member 
State in which recognition is sought; 

where  it  was  given  in  default  of  appearance,  if  the  defendant  was  not  served  with  the 
document  which  instituted  the  proceedings  or  with  an  equivalent  document  in  sufficient 
time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant 
failed to commence proceedings to challenge the decision when it was possible for him to 
do so; 

it  is  irreconcilable  with  a  decision  given  in  proceedings  between  the  same  parties  in  the 
Member State in which recognition is sought; 

it  is  irreconcilable  with  an  earlier  decision  given  in  another  Member  State  or  in  a  third 
State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
earlier decision fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State in 
which recognition is sought. 

Article 38 
Fundamental rights 

Article 37 shall be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in 
observance  of  the  fundamental  rights  and  principles  recognised  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights  of  the  European  Union,  in  particular  Article  21  thereof  on  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination. 

Article 39 
Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin 

1. 

2. 

The jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed.  

The public policy (ordre public) criterion referred to in Article 37 shall not apply to the 
rules on jurisdiction set out in Articles 4 to 12. 

Article 40 
No review as to substance 

Under no circumstances may a decision given in a Member State be reviewed as to its substance. 

Article 41 
Staying of recognition proceedings 

A court of a Member State in which recognition is sought of a decision given in another Member 
State  may  stay  the  proceedings  if  an  ordinary  appeal  against  the  decision  has  been  lodged  in  the 
Member State of origin. 

Article 42 
Enforceability  

Decisions  given  in  a  Member  State  and  enforceable  in  that  State  shall  be  enforceable  in  another 
Member  State  when,  on  the  application  of  any  interested  party,  they  have  been  declared 
enforceable there in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 44 to 57. 

Article 43 
Determination of domicile  

To determine whether, for the purposes of the procedure provided for in Articles 44 to 57, a party is 
domiciled in the Member State of enforcement, the court seised shall apply the internal law of that 
Member State. 

Article 44 
Jurisdiction of local courts 

1. 

The  application  for  a  declaration  of  enforceability  shall  be  submitted  to  the  court  or 
competent  authority  of  the  Member  State  of  enforcement  communicated  to  the 
Commission in accordance with Article 64.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

The local jurisdiction shall be determined by reference to the place of domicile of the party 
against whom enforcement is sought, or to the place of enforcement. 

Article 45 
Procedure 

The  application  procedure  shall  be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  Member  State 
of enforcement. 

The applicant shall not be required to have a postal address or an authorised representative 
in the Member State of enforcement. 

The application shall be accompanied by the following documents: 

(a) 

(b) 

a  copy  of  the  decision  which  satisfies  the  conditions  necessary  to  establish 
its authenticity; 

the  attestation  issued  by  the  court  or  competent  authority  of  the  Member  State  of 
origin using the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred 
to in Article 67(2), without prejudice to Article 46. 

Article 46 
Non-production of the attestation 

If  the  attestation  referred  to  in  point (b)  of  Article 45(3)  is  not  produced,  the  court  or 
competent  authority  may  specify  a  time  for  its  production  or  accept  an  equivalent 
document  or,  if  it  considers  that  it  has  sufficient  information  before  it,  dispense  with 
its production. 

If  the  court  or  competent  authority  so  requires,  a  translation  or  transliteration  of  the 
documents  shall  be  produced.  The  translation  shall  be  done  by  a  person  qualified  to  do 
translations in one of the Member States. 

Article 47 
Declaration of enforceability 

The  decision  shall  be  declared  enforceable  immediately  on  completion  of  the  formalities  in 
Article 45  without  any  review  under  Article 37.  The  party  against  whom  enforcement  is  sought 
shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application. 

Article 48 
Notice of the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability 

1. 

2. 

1. 

The  decision  on  the  application  for  a  declaration  of  enforceability  shall  forthwith  be 
brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the 
law of the Member State of enforcement. 

The declaration of enforceability shall be served on the party against whom enforcement is 
sought, accompanied by the decision, if not already served on that party. 

Article 49 
Appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability 

The  decision  on  the  application  for  a  declaration  of  enforceability  may  be  appealed  by 
either party. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The appeal shall be lodged with the court communicated by the Member State concerned 
to the Commission in accordance with Article 64. 

The  appeal  shall  be  dealt  with  in  accordance  with  the  rules  governing  procedure  in 
contradictory matters. 

If the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to appear before the appellate court 
in proceedings concerning an appeal brought by the applicant, Article 16 shall apply even 
where  the  party  against  whom  enforcement  is  sought  is  not  domiciled  in  any  of  the 
Member States. 

An  appeal  against  the  declaration  of  enforceability  shall  be  lodged  within  30 days  of 
service  thereof.  If  the  party  against  whom  enforcement  is  sought  is  domiciled  in  a 
Member State  other  than  that  in  which  the  declaration  of  enforceability  was  given,  the 
time for appealing shall be 60 days and shall run from the date of service, either on him in 
person or at his residence. No extension may be granted on account of distance. 

Article 50 
Procedure to contest the decision given on appeal 

The  decision  given  on  the  appeal  may  be  contested  only  by  the  procedure  communicated  by  the 
Member State concerned to the Commission in accordance with Article 64. 

Article 51 
Refusal or revocation of a declaration of enforceability 

The  court  with  which  an  appeal  is  lodged  under  Article 49  or  Article 50  shall  refuse  or  revoke  a 
declaration  of  enforceability  only  on  one  of  the  grounds  specified  in  Article 37.  It  shall  give  its 
decision without delay. 

Article 52 
Staying of proceedings 

The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 49 or Article 50 shall, on the application of 
the  party  against  whom  enforcement  is  sought,  stay  the  proceedings  if  the  enforceability  of  the 
decision is suspended in the Member State of origin by reason of an appeal. 

Article 53 
Provisional, including protective, measures 

1. 

2. 

3. 

When  a  decision  must  be  recognised  in  accordance  with  this  Chapter,  nothing  shall 
prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures 
in accordance with the law of the Member State of enforcement without a declaration of 
enforceability under Article 47 being required.  

The  declaration  of  enforceability  shall  carry  with  it  by  operation  of  law  the  power  to 
proceed to any protective measures. 

During the time specified for an appeal pursuant to Article 49(5) against the declaration of 
enforceability and until any such appeal has been determined, no measures of enforcement 
may  be  taken  other  than  protective  measures  against  the  property  of  the  party  against 
whom enforcement is sought. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

Article 54 
Partial enforceability 

1. 

Where  a  decision  has  been  given  in  respect  of  several  matters  and  the  declaration  of 
enforceability cannot be given for all of them, the court or competent authority shall give 
it for one or more of them. 

2. 

An applicant may request a declaration of enforceability limited to parts of a decision. 

Article 55 
Legal aid 

An applicant who, in the Member State of origin, has benefited from complete or partial legal aid 
or  exemption  from  costs  or  expenses  shall  be  entitled,  in  any  proceedings  for  a  declaration  of 
enforceability, to benefit from the most favourable legal aid or the most extensive exemption from 
costs or expenses provided for by the law of the Member State of enforcement. 

Article 56 
No security, bond or deposit 

No  security,  bond  or  deposit,  however  described,  shall  be  required  of  a  party  who  in  one 
Member State applies for recognition, enforceability or enforcement of a decision given in another 
Member State on the ground that he is a foreign national or that he is not domiciled or resident in 
the Member State of enforcement. 

Article 57 
No charge, duty or fee 

In proceedings for the issue of a declaration of enforceability, no charge, duty or fee calculated by 
reference to the value of the matter at issue may be levied in the Member State of enforcement. 

Chapter V 
Authentic instruments and court settlements 

Article 58 
Acceptance of authentic instruments 

1. 

2. 

An  authentic  instrument  established  in  a  Member  State  shall  have  the  same  evidentiary 
effects  in  another  Member  State  as  it  has  in  the  Member  State  of  origin,  or  the  most 
comparable  effects,  provided  that  this  is  not  manifestly  contrary  to  public  policy  (ordre 
public) in the Member State concerned. 

A  person  wishing  to  use  an  authentic  instrument  in  another  Member  State  may  ask  the 
authority establishing the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin to fill in the 
form  established  in  accordance  with  the  advisory  procedure  referred  to  in  Article 67(2) 
describing  the  evidentiary  effects  which  the  authentic  instrument  produces  in  the 
Member State of origin. 

Any challenge relating to the authenticity of an authentic instrument shall be made before 
the courts of the Member State of origin and shall be decided upon under the law of that 
State.  The  authentic  instrument  challenged  shall  not  produce  any  evidentiary  effect  in 
another Member State as long as the challenge is pending before the competent court. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Any  challenge  relating  to  the  legal  acts  or  legal  relationships  recorded  in  an  authentic 
instrument shall be made before the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation and 
shall  be  decided  upon  under  the  law  applicable  pursuant  to  Chapter III.  The  authentic 
instrument  challenged  shall  not  produce  any  evidentiary  effect  in  a  Member  State  other 
than  the  Member  State  of  origin  as  regards  the  matter  being  challenged  as  long  as  the 
challenge is pending before the competent court. 

If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination 
of  an  incidental  question  relating  to  the  legal  acts  or  legal  relationships  recorded  in  an 
authentic  instrument  in  matters  of  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  that 
court shall have jurisdiction over that question 

Article 59 
Enforceability of authentic instruments 

An  authentic  instrument  which  is  enforceable  in  the  Member  State  of  origin  shall  be 
declared enforceable in another Member State on the application of any interested party in 
accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 44 to 57. 

For the purposes of point (b) of Article 45(3), the authority which established the authentic 
instrument shall, on the application of any interested party, issue an attestation using the 
form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 67(2). 

The  court  with  which  an  appeal  is  lodged  under  Article  49  or  Article 50  shall  refuse  or 
revoke  a  declaration  of  enforceability  only  if  enforcement  of  the  authentic  instrument  is 
manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State of enforcement. 

Article 60 
Enforceability of court settlements 

Court settlements which are enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be declared 
enforceable  in  another  Member  State  on  the  application  of  any  interested  party  in 
accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 44 to 57. 

For the purposes of point (b) of Article 45(3), the court which approved the settlement or 
before  which  it  was  concluded  shall,  on  the  application  of  any  interested  party,  issue  an 
attestation using the form established in accordance with the advisory procedure referred 
to in Article 67(2). 

The  court  with  which  an  appeal  is  lodged  under  Article 49  or  Article 50  shall  refuse  or 
revoke  a  declaration  of  enforceability  only  if  enforcement  of  the  court  settlement  is 
manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State of enforcement. 

Chapter VI 
General and final provisions 

Article 61 
Legalisation and other similar formalities 

No  legalisation  or  other  similar  formality  shall  be  required  in  respect  of  documents  issued  in  a 
Member State in the context of this Regulation.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

Article 62 
Relations with existing international conventions 

1. 

2. 

This Regulation shall not affect the application of the bilateral or multilateral conventions 
to which one or more Member States are party at the time of adoption of this Regulation 
and  which  concerns  matters  covered  by  this  Regulation,  without  prejudice  to  the 
obligations of the Member States under Article 351 of the Treaty. 

Notwithstanding  paragraph  1,  this  Regulation  shall,  between  Member  States,  take 
precedence over conventions which relate to subjects governed by this Regulation and to 
which the Member States are party. 

Article 63 
Information made available to the public 

The Member States shall, with a view to making the information available to the public within the 
framework  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters,  provide  the 
Commission  with  a  short  summary  of  their  national  legislation  and  procedures  relating  to  the 
property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  including  information  on  the  type  of  authority 
which has competence in matters thereof and on the effects in respect of third parties referred to in 
Article 28. 

The Member States shall keep the information permanently updated. 

Article 64 
Information on contact details and procedures 

1. 

By …*, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission: 

(a) 

the courts or authorities with competence to deal with applications for a declaration 
of enforceability in accordance with Article 44(1) and with appeals against decisions 
on such applications in accordance with Article 49(2); 

(b) 

the procedures to contest the decision given on appeal referred to in Article 50; 

The  Member  States  shall  apprise  the  Commission  of  any  subsequent  changes  to 
that information. 

2. 

3. 

The  Commission  shall  publish  the  information  communicated  in  accordance  with 
paragraph 1  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  with  the  exception  of  the 
addresses and other contact details of the courts and authorities referred to in point (a) of 
paragraph 1. 

The Commission shall make all information communicated in accordance with paragraph 
1  publicly  available  through  any  appropriate  means,  in  particular  through  the  European 
Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.  

* 

OJ: please insert the date: 9 months before the date of application of this Regulation. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 65 
Establishment and subsequent amendment of the list containing the information referred to 
in Article 3(2) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The  Commission  shall,  on  the  basis  of  the  notifications  by  the  Member  States,  establish 
the list of the other authorities and legal professionals referred to in Article 3(2).  

The  Member  States  shall  notify  the  Commission  of  any  subsequent  changes  to  the 
information contained in that list. The Commission shall amend the list accordingly.  

The  Commission  shall  publish  the  list  and  any  subsequent  amendments  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union.  

The Commission shall make all information notified in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 
2  publicly  available  through  any  other  appropriate  means,  in  particular  through  the 
European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.  

Article 66 
Establishment and subsequent amendment of the attestations and forms referred to in 
Articles 45(3)(b), 58, 59 and 60 

The  Commission  shall  adopt  implementing  acts  establishing  and  subsequently  amending  the 
attestations and forms referred to in Articles 45(3)(b), 58, 59 and 60. Those implementing acts shall 
be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 67(2). 

Article 67  
Committee procedure 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee 
within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article 4  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 182/2011 
shall apply. 

Article 68 
Review clause 

No later than eight years after the date of application, and every five years thereafter, the 
Commission  shall  present  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  a  report  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation.  Where 
necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals to amend this Regulation. 

No later than five years after the date of application, the Commission shall present to the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  a 
report on the application of Articles 9 and 38 of this Regulation. This report shall evaluate 
in particular the extent to which these articles have ensured access to justice. 

To that end,Member States shall communicate to the Commission relevant information on 
the application of this Regulation by their courts. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

Article 69 
Transitional provisions 

1. 

2. 

3. 

This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted, to authentic instruments 
formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 
the date of its application, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 

However, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted before the date 
of  application  of  this  Regulation,  decisions  given  after  that  date  shall  be  recognised  and 
enforced in accordance with Chapter IV as long as the rules of jurisdiction applied comply 
with those set out in Chapter II. 

Chapter III shall apply only to partners who register their partnership or who specify the 
law applicable to the property consequences of their registered partnership after the date of 
application of this Regulation. 

Article 70 
Entry into force 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

This Regulation shall apply from …30, except for Articles 63 and 64 which shall apply from …31, 
and Articles 65, 66 and 67, which shall apply from …32  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the participating Member 
States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 

The President 

30 
31 
32 

Two and a half year after its entry into force.  
Nine months before the date of application 
The day following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.  

EN 

43 

   EN